Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] XHTML and the politics of cooperation and interoperability
 There have been some interesting discussions about the merits of XHTML and SVG vis a vis Flash (which is actually a discussion I don't quite understand, since XHTML/HTML serves a completely different purpose than Flash/SVG). In the old days, specs were driven by vendors. Netscape would come out with a new HTML element, and the W3C would have to play catch-up. Today, the reverse is true. The W3C *seems* light years ahead of vendors. What has been missing from the recent discussions? Well, I haven't seen the major vendors weighing in yet. I know their representatives read this list. Why the silence? We hear the argument that, for example, the dominant browser vendor won't support this or that vocabulary. Or that Adobe won't incorporate another, or Macromedia isn't interested in something else. Yet, they are all members of the W3C, and usually even have representatives listed as authors and/or editors of the recommendations we see discussed on this list. Maybe I'm working from a false premise here. I had assumed that one of the W3C's goals was interoperability. I am not familiar with the bylaws of the W3C, or even of any mission statement, but interoperability has certainly been *at least* implied from the W3C's public pronouncements. Take a look at the author list of the SVG recommendation, for example: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/#AuthorList There is Microsoft, who can't seem to let go of VML, and Macromedia, who *seems*, from their silence on SVG, to be afraid of the very vocabulary they helped create. Where is the interoperability here? What is the point of having "standards" if the major vendors, who helped write them, aren't willing to abide by them? We hear the argument that Internet Explorer won't support XHTML the way it could. Why? http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#acks MS was represented when the vocabulary was developed. So what's the problem? Part of the reason for developing XHTML, the DOM, and CSS, at least if my interpretation of public pronouncements is accurate, was to correct the road accident that was DHTML. But today's mess seems like a Babel-like confluence of standards that requires an encyclopedic support matrix if you want to actually deploy any of it. I pray this won't lead to another Microsoft-bashing thread. We've heard enough of that, and most of our opinions regarding Microsoft's support or non-support of standards have been formed. What I'm interested in knowing is why representatives from vendors are not weighing in on their plans for supporting the new standards that seem to emerge every day from the W3C. My next question is probably going to be, why doesn't the W3C slow down a little, and give us all a chance to breathe? Maybe the questions are XLinked. Chuck White ------------------------- Author, Mastering XSLT, Sybex Books Co-Author, Mastering XML Premium Edition, Sybex Books http://www.javertising.com/webtech/ 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
